The fractious debate you are hosting on climate change is always entertaining, consisting as it does on the deniers’ side of pseudo-science, cherry-picking of data and general insult. Now that a vicar, who seems to upbraid both sides, has waded in (Letters, March 28) it is time to stand up for science.

The majority of expert scientists agree anthropogenic climate change is a real and present threat. Much needs to be done. This will require the brightest open minds rather than closed-minded deniers. Be clear it is the scientists who are sceptical. The process of science is to make sense of observations and perform experiments to test assumptions. In other words the pursuit of evidence and the continued questioning of that evidence through peer-reviewed publication of results.

Alas, a book written centuries ago by men with vested interests does not constitute evidence nor is the selection of data to suit an argument scientific: that is what amateurs or those with vested interests do.

The letter a couple of weeks ago suggest ing there might as well be a debate about smoking causing cancer had a point. The evidence is clear and obvious that it does of course but for each case of disease there can be no certainty of smoking being the cause.

Just as no single extreme weather event can be pinned on anthropogenic climate change it is merely that as 95 per cent of climate scientists show the data indicates it might and that such events will become more frequent. The deniers need to answer this question: if they had a very nasty disease, would they go with treatment based on the 95 per cent of research, publicly funded, or assume that such research was a conspiracy and deny the disease exists, trust to prayer only or follow quack remedies? I know what I would choose. — John Meech, Oak View, Great Kingshill